The determinants of COVID-19 case reporting across Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to study on the under-estimation of COVID-19 cases in African countries, the average daily case reporting rate was only 5.37% in the initial phase of the outbreak when there was little or no control measures. In this work, we aimed to identify the determinants of the case reporting and classify the African countries using the case reporting rates and the significant determinants. Methods: We used the COVID-19 daily case reporting rate estimated in the previous paper for 54 African countries as the response variable and 34 variables from demographics, socioeconomic, religion, education, and public health categories as the predictors. We adopted a generalized additive model with cubic spline for continuous predictors and linear relationship for categorical predictors to identify the significant covariates. In addition, we performed Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC) analysis on the reporting rates and significant continuous covariates of all countries. Results: 21 covariates were identified as significantly associated with COVID-19 case detection: total population, urban population, median age, life expectancy, GDP, democracy index, corruption, voice accountability, social media, internet filtering, air transport, human development index, literacy, Islam population, number of physicians, number of nurses, global health security, malaria incidence, diabetes incidence, lower respiratory and cardiovascular diseases prevalence. HCPC resulted in three major clusters for the 54 African countries: northern, southern and central essentially, with the northern having the best early case detection, followed by the southern and the central. Conclusion: Overall, northern and southern Africa had better early COVID-19 case identification compared to the central. There are a number of demographics, socioeconomic, public health factors that exhibited significant association with the early case detection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".